Agenda item

The Committee received a report of West Leicestershire and East Leicestershire and Rutland Clinical Commissioning Groups which provided an overview of how Section 106 healthcare contributions were managed by the NHS and the process followed to ensure that all possible funding was received from developers. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, is filed with these minutes.

The Committee welcomed Ian Potter, Director of Primary Care at West Leicestershire CCG, to the meeting for this item. The Committee also welcomed Ian Webb and Frank Bedford who were residents of the Ashby de la Zouch area that had submitted representations regarding the way West Leicestershire CCG managed the Section 106 process in the Ashby area.

Arising from discussions the following points were made:

(i)        Ian Potter highlighted the statutory nature of Section 106 within the planning process and gave reassurance that the CCGs had worked hard to improve the level of communication with District Councils and that the relationships now worked well. It was noted that health was not the only beneficiary of Section 106 agreements, the others being the District and County Councils, and it was important to strike a balance between them. It was further noted that developers were commercial organisations and there was a limit to the amount of their profits they would allocate towards helping communities. District Councils had the power to refuse to forward on requests from CCGs for Section 106 contributions to developers therefore it was worth asking the Local Authorities how often they rejected requests from CCGs. When drafting Section 106 Agreements it was prudent for Local Authorities to insert a break point so that the required Section 106 contributions could be reviewed when the development was halfway towards completion.

(ii)       A Member stated that there should be greater transparency with regards to Section 106 contributions which had been requested and rejected and suggested that the details could be listed on websites. Ian Potter agreed to give this suggestion further consideration. In response to a request from a Member, Ian Potter agreed to ascertain if it would be possible to identify the rejection rate for health related Section 106 applications and understand which District Councils were the most successful at obtaining Section 106 contributions and which were the least successful.

(iii)      A Member raised concern that the figure for Section 106 Healthcare Contributions for the area covered by Oadby and Wigston Borough Council was zero particularly given the housing developments that were underway in that area. Ian Potter confirmed that this figure was accurate and offered to obtain further information regarding Section 106 in Oadby and Wigston from ELRCCG and circulate to Members.

(iv)      In response to a suggestion that Section 106 money could be used for defibrillators to be placed in communities, Ian Potter offered to give this idea consideration but explained that CCGs usually looked to spend Section 106 monies on initiatives that would ease the pressure on GP Practices rather than on wider community health issues.

(v)       In response to a question from a Member Ian Potter confirmed that CCGs had no influence on affordable housing.

With the permission of the Chairman, Mr Bedford and Mr Webb addressed the Committee with regard to concerns raised by the Ashby Civic Society about the use of Section 106 monies to fund healthcare developments in Ashby. A copy of the comments submitted by Ashby Civic Society is filed with these minutes as is the response from West Leicestershire CCG. Members advised Mr Bedford and Mr Webb to work with Ashby Town Council to take their concerns forward.

RESOLVED:

That the update on how Section 106 healthcare contributions are managed by the NHS and the process followed to ensure that all possible funding is received from developers be noted.